this is bbc news. i'm ben brown, live at the supreme court. the headlines at 11. the supreme court rules that parliament must vote on whether the government can start the brexit process. so any change in the law to give effect to the referendum must be made in the only way permitted by the uk constitution, namely by an act of parliament. to proceed otherwise would be a breach of settled constitutional principles stretching back many centuries. downing street says today's ruling will not affect it's plans to trigger article 50 by the end of march. but one of those who brought the case against the government says mps will now have their say. only parliament can grant rights to the british people and only parliament can take them away. no prime minister and no government can expect to be unanswered or unchallenged.

the government will comply with the judgment of the court and do all that it can to implement it. brexit secretary david davis is due to make a statement later setting out how the government will respond. good morning from the supreme court which today has made legal, constitutional and political history. with this judgment by eight

to three, it is parliament that has to three, it is parliament that has to trigger article 50 to begin the formal process of the united kingdom leaving the european union. it is a defeat for the government, which said that through its prerogative powers it could trigger article 50 alone. but that was the decision by eight to three of the supreme court justices as it was read out this morning here the supreme court by the president, lord neuberger. today, by a majority of 8—3, the supreme court rules that the government cannot trigger article 50 without an act of parliament authorising it to do so. book briefly, the reasons given in a judgment written by all eight justices in the majority are as follows. . . justices in the majority are as follows... section two of the 1972 act provides that whenever the eu

institutions making laws, those new laws become part of uk law. the 1972 act therefore makes use of independent of uk law until parliament decides otherwise. therefore, when the uk withdraws from the eu treaties, a source of uk law will be cut off. however, certain rights enjoyed by uk citizens would be changed. therefore, the government cannot trigger article 50 without parliament authorising that cause. thatjudgment was that judgment was delivered thatjudgment was delivered at 9:30am this morning. not entirely a surprise, it had been widely anticipated by the government that they would lose this case. well, there was much speculation that the

government would lose. many lawyers thought they would lose. one of the big problems when they were essentially arguing against the fundamental principle on which our unwritten constitution is based on that his parliamentary sovereignty. what lord neuberger said in that clip was that the 1972 act, european communities act, which took us what is now the eu, created an independent source of uk law until parliament decides otherwise. in other words, that law is law of the uk parliament and only the uk parliament can change it. the government had an ingenious argument to say, this is sort of a matter of treaties and treaty law and treaty rights and because of the royal prerogative, which can be used in international treaties, it can be used to reach in and why those rights away or change them. that has been resoundingly, by a majority of eight to three, rejected by the

court. we know the prime minister was given advance notice of the judgment, as she got to reach a just a few minutes before it was delivered. a few minutes after it was delivered by the president of the supreme court, we had here outside the court from the attorney general, jeremy wright, with the government's reaction.|j general, jeremy wright, with the government's reaction. i want to begin by thanking the justices of the supreme court of the careful consideration is given to this matter. it is a case that it was wholly appropriate for the land to decide. of course, the government is disappointed with the outcome. we have the good fortune to live in a country where everyone, every individual, every organisation, even government, is subject to the rule of law. so, the government will comply with the judgment of the court and do all that is necessary to implement it. the court has been very clear throughout the hearing of this case that it has not been

deciding whether the united kingdom should or should not leave the european union. the people of the uk have already made that decision. and now, enacting that decision will be a political matter and not a legal matter. and so, the secretary of state for exiting the european union will make a further statement in parliament later today. thank you very much indeed. that was the attorney general, jeremy wright, with his immediate government reaction to the judgment to make even the supreme court. clive coleman, or legal affairs correspondent, we gather the government has already prepared various potential draft bills to put a parliament, anticipating defeat here. one of the great ironies of this whole case is that had the then government in 2015 with a single

line into the 2015 referendum act, saying, in the event of a vote to leave, we, parliament, gift to trigger article 50, under the royal prerogative, then we wouldn't have had any of this. quite like it could have saved a lot of fuss! it could and then maybe red faces amongst those who should have thought about inserting such a close. what i think we will get is a pretty short bill with something similar in it. what happens now is that the government loses control of the process and gets weaker. parliament gets stronger and can exercise more control, if you like. amendments can be put down. this no appetite to derail the democratic juggernaut that is the referendum vote. the uk is her claim of at least ambling towards the exit doors of the eu. parliament will not stop that happening that it is embarrassing for the government. it means they will have to work a lot

harder, it will be a bit messier, there will be some amendments made down and could mess with the timetable the prime minister has set herself for triggering by the end of march, although the bills have got through parliament in five days before. so, not derailed but conceivably delayed. we will wait to see. straight after that judgment, we heard from gina miller, the investment fund manager who brought this case in the first place and she said thejudgment this case in the first place and she said the judgment was a victory for democracy and the rule of law. today, eight of the 11 supreme judges upheld the judgment handed down by the high court in november. ina case down by the high court in november. in a case that went to the very heart of our constitution and how we are governed. the parliament can grant rights to the british people are daily parliament can take them away. no prime minister, no

government, can expect to be unanswerable or unchallenged. parliament alone is sovereign. this ruling today means that mps we have elected will rightfully have the opportunity to bring their invaluable experience and expertise to bear in helping governments select the best course in the forthcoming brexiter negotiations. negotiations that will frame our place in the world and all our destiny is to come. there is no doubt that brexit is a most divisive issue of a generation that this case was about the legal process, not politics. today's decision has created legal certainty based on our democratic process and provides the legal foundations for the government to trigger article 50. gina miller

there, who brought the case. for gina miller personally, this has been quite a difficult case. she has been quite a difficult case. she has been vilified, she has had death threats and has had to employ bodyguards. she has. she has exercised the right of every citizen has to a court and say, look, you scrutinise the actions of the proposed actions of the executive, of ministers, to ensure they are lawful under our constitution? that is through a mechanism called judicial review. it is very democratic because anyone can do it. it is often difficult to raise the money to do it but i'm doing it, it has been a particularly stressful time for her. she has been the subject of some pretty vicious and nasty threats. she has shown that a single citizen can invite the independent judiciary to single citizen can invite the independentjudiciary to hold the government to account and to stop

the government debt in its tracks before the government proposes is deemed to be unlawful under the constitution. she has actually provided a lesson in constitutional law for all of us, really. indeed. thank you. let's go now to norman smith. in westminster. the ball has been backed by the churches a few hundred yards across parliament square to your end of the court, to parliament. yes. we will now get a vote on triggering article 50 and attem pts vote on triggering article 50 and atte m pts by vote on triggering article 50 and attempts by mp to table amendments, framing the way to may goes into the negotiations but also crucial in this is the scottish government. some words from nicola sturgeon, because you remember the supreme court ruled that the scottish parliament did not have a right to have a vote on its attitude towards

article 50. nicola sturgeon is saying she's disappointed, more than that, she will hold a vote anyway. she clearly wants to signal the overwhelming view of scottish msps, which is their opposition to brexit on triggering article 50. but it further ratchet up the likelihood of a second independence referendum. let me tell you what she says. she says, it is becoming clearer by the day that scotland's voice is simply not being heard or listened to within the uk. this raises fundamental issues above and beyond that of eu membership. his scotland content that of eu membership. his scotland co nte nt for that of eu membership. his scotland content for our future to be dictated by an increasingly right—wing westminster government with just one mp here? right—wing westminster government withjust one mp here? or is it better that we take our future into oui’ better that we take our future into our own hands? it is becoming clear that this is a choice that scotland must make. put together with a recent warning the other day that a ha rd recent warning the other day that a

hard brexit makes a second referendum would likely, i would suggest that nicola sturgeon is indeed gearing up for the possibility of a second independence referendum. a possibility that not only the uk will be the eu but this presents the possibility of uk being poised to break up. another key element today is what happens to the bill we expect david davis to unveil in around, 12:30pm, we know labour wa nt to in around, 12:30pm, we know labour want to table amendments. i enjoyed by hilary benn. the key amendment, it seems to me, that you want to press, is this one really want to press, is this one really want to press for a meaningful vote before we leave the eu. what does it mean? well, the select committee called for a vote at the end of negotiations. this was because since the european parliament will have a vote and all other member states will have a vote, the same should be true for the uk parliament. she has

indeed done in order for it to mean something and to have a chance of influencing the final deal looks like, then! influencing the final deal looks like, then i think, personally, it is reasonable for that to be when an agreement is in draft because parliament might want to say, that is broadly cave this book doesn't look very good, can you please go back and negotiate some other changes to the agreement? parliament intends to be a participant in this process, which will have huge significance for everyone in the country and not to be a bystander. is in country and not to be a bystander. isina country and not to be a bystander. is in a factory records charter, enabling mps to have a veto over what mrs may says. people will use it as an opportunity to block the eu. no, norman, that is not the case. i eu. no, norman, that is not the case. lam eu. no, norman, that is not the case. i am sure a big majority of

labour mps will vote to trigger article 50 and we are leaving the european union. that is clear. but theissue european union. that is clear. but the issue was what kind of relationship are we going to have with the 27 member states of the eu after we have left? that is what this negotiation is all about. the government needs now to publish a white paper. we had a speech from the prime minister that is not a formal document that parliament candidate. our select committee said they should publish a white paper. and the government will come under great pressure to do that. we need to see in front of us in parliament, set out in a white paper, the government's objectives for these negotiations and on—site consideration of the builder will 110w consideration of the builder will now come forward and the present amendments. parliament will want to say, we must amendments. parliament will want to say, we itiust ensure amendments. parliament will want to say, we must ensure continued to free barrier free access to our largersingh, free barrier free access to our larger singh, from british business. that is what people said when he gave evidence before the select committee. let's talk about the

likelihood that this bill will be truncated one. a stripped back bill of 16 or 20 warrants, a minimalist ill. is that acceptable on an issue of such magnitude? added to the bill does not need to belong, to say parliament gives the government authority to trigger article 50. that is not under debate. but i'm sure there will be mps who will want to entrench on that, clarity. the said it would be a vote, well, you could put that in the bill. the minister says she wants to achieve barrier free access to carry on trading. so important for industry. you could put that in legislation as pa rt of you could put that in legislation as part of the objectives for negotiations. depending on the exact kind of bill that comes forward and what amendments the speaker decides on an orator. but look, the basic point is that we will be leaving the eu but parliament, i'm sure, will

wa nt eu but parliament, i'm sure, will want to have a saying about the terms under which we leave and what the new relationship will look like. that is why there is a lot of debate to be had become to the final moment when they depart and take our place ina new when they depart and take our place in a new and different world. he has been clear, you personally will vote to trigger article 50. should jeremy corbyn quip labour mps to back article 50? should he insist that if you are a labour mp then you must support triggering article 50?- you are a labour mp then you must support triggering article 50? at is a matter for the shadow cabinet and chief whip to decide. people have strong views on either side. mps should focus on what they think is right in those circumstances. as a backbencher and as chair of the select committee, i am saying i will go to trigger article 50 because she cannot see respect the outcome of the referendum and then knocked out to give effect to it. that is why there is little doubt that parliament would do precisely that.

we can you not vote against triggering article 50 if you remain personally convinced that brings it isa personally convinced that brings it is a mistake? then surely in a democracy, you're entitled to express your opinion and vote accordingly? i think that is what i just said to you, norman. in the end, individual mps will make up their own end, individual mps will make up theirown minds and end, individual mps will make up their own minds and be held accountable by their constituents. that the way our democracy works. we might as well be honest about the fa ct might as well be honest about the fact that the nation split almost entirely down the middle. and there are very strongly and sincerely held views on the part of members of parliament and sure we will see that reflected in the final vote. thank you. in about one hour, we should get more clarity from the government about what it will do next. a key statement will be made by david davis about the nature of the bill mps will get to vote on. and also, an indication of the timetable. there is speculation the government might simply clear out commons business next week to ram it through

the commons and give it plenty of time. and then perhaps through a more problematic house of lords. thank you. i am going to get more a political reaction here on the steps of the supreme court from paul nuttall, the youtube later. what is your reaction to the judgments we hear? i am disappointed. i didn't believe it should have come to the supreme court and the first place. i believe the supreme court got this wrong. but i am not surprised. we all thought the government would lose this case it is now over to that lot over there in parliament. i say to them, let's get on with it until it quickly and with betide any mp orthe until it quickly and with betide any mp or the house of lords if they try to mess around with people. but there will likely be amendments. with whatever bill is introduced. there will likely be amendments.

with whatever bill is introducedm course, they say they will put down 50 amendments, the snp, which i think is an attempt to subvert the will of the british people. the labour party would like to vote at the end of the process, which again, i don't think the right route to ta ke i don't think the right route to take and the liberal democrats just wa nt take and the liberal democrats just want another referendum. so, they will try to play around with it but lam will try to play around with it but i am confident the government has enough numbers to make sure it goes through. so, you think the prime minister's timetable of triggering brexit by the end of march, that is achievable still? i would certainly hope so. we would want to see a swift brexit, a clean brexit, which means out of the single market, controlling our own borders, and able to sign trade deals around the globe. that is what the british people voted for on june 23 and that's what i believe we will get. in terms of the decision here, the high courtand

in terms of the decision here, the high court and the judges were vilified in the press as enemies of the people. do you accept that it is fairand rightforan the people. do you accept that it is fair and right for an independent judiciary to have her in this case and reached whatever judgment judiciary to have her in this case and reached whateverjudgment they wa nt and reached whateverjudgment they want to? i accept the result. in future, i would want to? i accept the result. in future, iwould probably like want to? i accept the result. in future, i would probably like to see some sort of change the law to mean that referendums are binding and we do not have to go through this farce. but in the end, we accept the result and it has now pretty mps in the house of lords to ensure the will of the people is enacted. the will of the people is enacted. the will of the people is enacted. the will of the people could have been binding if the legislation of the referendum spelt out that the result would empower ministers to trigger article 50. it could have been done. that then you ask the question, was done by accident or design? did they wa nt done by accident or design? did they want to ensure that it wasn't painting in case they got the result they did not foresee or want? i don't know. like to know is that the british people voted in the the eu june 23. now, mps and the house of lords have a duty to ensure the will

of the people is enacted. so you don't criticise the judges for their ruling? no, i accept the results. i am disappointed but not surprised. but i would say that in future, let's ensure legislation is in place so let's ensure legislation is in place so that we do not have to go through this. thank you. that was paul nuttall, the leader of ukip. what are your thoughts about the judgment today? i wasn't surprised. are your thoughts about the judgment today? iwasn't surprised. it are your thoughts about the judgment today? i wasn't surprised. it was in keeping with the decision of the high court in october. its analysis of what i would describe as a fundamental constitutional principle in this country seemed to me to be very clear, statute law is the supreme very clear, statute law is the supreme form of parliamentary sovereignty and expression as to how we pass laws and if you, as an executive, do something which undermined statute law and gets rid

of it by the back door, it is an unacceptable of it by the back door, it is an u na cce pta ble process. of it by the back door, it is an unacceptable process. and that is really what this case all about. gregory statute law, you need another statute. do you accept that there are people watching now who said, why did i bother to vote? i thought i was voting in a referendum to leave the eu and it would just be done. why do we need all this legal shenanigans? the referendum was a very important event on the face of it, this uk is going to leave the eu, unless public opinion changes in some dramatic way is this process goes through. nobody is trying to stand on the way the referendum result. that has to be done in a lawfulfashion. we don't result. that has to be done in a lawful fashion. we don't have government by referendum. to be fair to voters, that was not really spelt out before the referendum. well, i think it was but i'm the first to accept the government might have made the position clearer. he was a lwa ys made the position clearer. he was always my understanding this was an advisory referendum because of

referenda are advisory unless parliament puts particular provisions in place so that the result kicks in without any further work of parliament. so, my view is that the referendum was very important, parliament will go ahead and debate the triggering of article 50, there are very considerable challenges in our league the eu. i know some people don't agree with that but i happen to think that it is fraught with many risks. there may also be some opportunities from it. our task as parliamentarian sister clare that process to the best advantage of the british electorate. we will hear from david davis later. what do you think the government should do in their response to the judgment today?” think the government needs to do two things. firstly, introduce necessary legislation to enable parliament to authorise the triggering of article 50. secondly, it needs to stand by the promises made before christmas.

again, made clear by the primitive, that we would set up the plan that the government has asked to where we're going after that. parliament must recognise that the government's ability to implement the plan will at least partly dependent on the 27 partners we will have to negotiate a future relationship with outside the hue. as i think parliament will need every assurance. i hue. as i think parliament will need every assurance. i think the government is in a position to give up. the prime minister's speech last week was a major step along the route. will this delay the process? ifind route. will this delay the process? i find that difficult. we're in late january. parliament can sit and legislation is necessary, quickly that it legislation is necessary, quickly thatitis legislation is necessary, quickly that it is also practising this should not be treated as emergency legislation. it should be taken in

the normal way, even if the intervals are quite rapid between the times that we look at it. i think it is possible to do it in the time frame but it will be quite close. quite frankly, the time frame to slip by a period of time, i don't think that has any significant impact on the article 50 process they are after. dominic grieve, thank you for being with us. former attorney general for england and wales. let's just take the pulse in wales. let's just take the pulse in wales now. there was a case heard at the supreme court and the devolved legislatures in scotland, wales and northern ireland, should have a say in the triggering of brexit. let's go to cardiff and join my colleague there for a reaction to the supreme courtjudgment. wales, the other country that voted out in the eu

referendum last year, 53% voting to leave the eu and reacting to today's judgments. it was declared as a victory, even though the devolved administrations would not have event. said the judgment upheld parliamentary democracy and stressed the importance of the civil convention. which was said to be not in the remit of the judiciary. the welsh government has campaigned, and the biggest thing for them when it came to discussing how britain and wales would leave the eu, was staying in the single market. they have stressed they will campaign that any deal that is made is the softest brexit possible and that wales and the uk stay in the single market. carwynjones sees it as an integral part of the business and economy of wales and that will be the focus when it comes to discussing the future of the eu and

wales. ca rwyn discussing the future of the eu and wales. carwynjones will continue to debate in the chamber here and although there will be no vote, they will continue to fight to participate in the single market. thank you. i think we can go to belfast and join chris buckler with reaction from northern ireland? belfast and join chris buckler with reaction from northern ireland7m isa reaction from northern ireland7m is a slightly different situation to wales here in northern ireland, in that the majority of people voted to remain inside the eu. there have been voices here saying that northern ireland should have some kind of self—determination on the issue of brexit. on the basis of two things, there is a unique politics here, the belfast agreement for as it is more commonly called, the good friday agreement, did put in place a numberof friday agreement, did put in place a number of issues that potentially,

the argument goes, could prevent northern ireland leaving the eu, without some say here. however, that is very much been rejected at the supreme court 's. they made clear that the northern irish people did indeed have a constitutional say on whether it is part of the uk but that does not extend to being part of the eu. so, that argument has really been knocked down by the supreme court. it is important to remember that as supreme court. it is important to rememberthat as faras supreme court. it is important to remember that as far as brexiters concerned, there's a lot to be worked out, particularly as far as northern ireland is concerned. the other big issue here is to do with the geographical differences to this pa rt of the geographical differences to this part of the uk from other parts. basically, there is a border with what will become another eu country, the republic of ireland. and still, the republic of ireland. and still, the questions about what might happen to that order. and that means a political discussion about what

practically brexit will mean. people will watch this closely. could there potentially be some kind of hard brexit, a hard worker? that is something that will be looked at time and time again. politicians are therefore watching this carefully. it is worth remembering that given the politics here being unstable at the politics here being unstable at the moment, the power—sharing government having effectively collapsed within the last couple of weeks and with elections coming up, the questions of brexit will be debated in that election. you will find that on one side you have the democratic unionist party, who are very in favour of the idea of the united kingdom leaving the eu and on the other side, sinn fein and other parties, heavily against the idea of northern ireland leaving the eu. that is going to be a big debating point in these elections. once again, it is the case that this issue and what practically means for northern ireland has not gone away with this judgment. northern ireland has not gone away with thisjudgment. thank you. let's go to holyrood. what is the

reaction there? rejecting the notion that scottish devolved administration should have a say in the triggering of brexit, what is the triggering of brexit, what is the reaction to that? the reaction is that it is good in parts and bad in others. nicola sturgeon has welcomed the fact mps will get to have a say in trickling article 50. —— triggering. they are going to table 50 amendments to article 50 including calling for a white paper to be published and a full agreement in the agreement of triggering article 50. scotland's sole labour mp is believed to be against the triggering of article 50 as well and the sole lib dem mp as well. when it comes to the bad part, there is a

pretty angry reaction from the first minister nicola sturgeon and she is giving an interview shortly. she is pretty angry the devolved administrations are not being consulted about this. various conventions have been embedded in the statute and she says they are now not worth the paper they're on after the supreme court justice's ruling that the devolved administration shouldn't be consulted. the big question in scotla nd consulted. the big question in scotland is, when might they be or will there be a second independence referendum? nicola sturgeon makes it very clear in his statement that scotla nd very clear in his statement that scotland is indeed against what she calls a ha rd scotland is indeed against what she calls a hard brexit, pursued by the tory government. she wants scotland to have the choice to choose a different future and each day, we hear a different variety of language about that choice becoming ever closer. 0nce about that choice becoming ever closer. once again today, she says scotla nd closer. once again today, she says scotland will have a choice to make

in the future at some point and i think that choice is, as she points out, becoming ever closer. a second referendum, may be on the cards may be next year, the year after. thank you. that is the latest from the supreme court, so many political implications and ramifications of thisjudgment today. implications and ramifications of this judgment today. this judgment by 8—3 by this supreme court justices that it is parliament that must trigger article 50 and exactly how the government will get parliament to do that, we should hearin parliament to do that, we should hear ina parliament to do that, we should hear in a bit more detailfrom the brexit secretary david davis in a statement where he will outline the strategy. now, back tojoanna in the newsroom. 0ur

our main news is the fact the uk supreme court has ruled by a majority of eight to 3 that parliament must give authorisation to the government before prime minister theresa may can trigger article 50 to formally withdraw from the european union. the court's ruling was welcomed by the lead claimant in the challenge, gina miller. she said mps will now have the chance to select the best course in brexit talks. only parliament can grant rights to the british people and only parliament can take them away. no prime minister and no government can expect to be unanswered or unchallenged. attorney generaljeremy wright said the government would "comply

with thejudgement of the court and do all that is necessary to implement it". of course, the government is disappointed with the outcome but we have the good fortune to live in a country where every individual, every organisation, even government, is subject to the rule of law. scotland's first minister nicola sturgeon, says regardless of the ruling, they are politically obliged to consult the nation's assembly on exiting the eu. we at outsider supreme court on a day when it has been constitutional and legal history with the judgment that it and legal history with the judgment thatitis and legal history with the judgment that it is parliament that must trigger article 50 to begin the

formal process of leaving the european union, that the government cannot do it alone through its prerogative powers. 8—3, the supreme court justices decided prerogative powers. 8—3, the supreme courtjustices decided that in a judgment read out by the president of the supreme court, lord neuberger. let's discuss it now with some eminent legal brains. having phillips, professor of law at durham university, and also professor richard meekings oxford university,. i think you went along with the government position. are you surprised or disappointed that the government have lost.” surprised or disappointed that the government have lost. i am disappointed. i'm not terribly surprised. i think the majority has fumbled the law on the minority, the three justices have a better fumbled the law on the minority, the threejustices have a better grasp on the legal point. the basis on

which gina miller, the claimant in this case, the basis of that was that eu law was enshrined into british law and eu rights became british law and eu rights became british rights for british citizens through that act of parliament and thenif through that act of parliament and then if parliament gives people rights, only parliament can take them away again. it is about how it is enshrined. it refers to whatever the position is as to what are the uk's obligations. no one in the case, the three justices uk's obligations. no one in the case, the threejustices in uk's obligations. no one in the case, the three justices in the minority have a better grasp on the way in which the government's prerogative powers are relevant to the eu law and how it comes to bear on our law. do you agree, that the three minority justices on our law. do you agree, that the three minorityjustices got it right? i think by the end, i came down more on the claimant claimant's

side of the case. it is a more straightforward one. parliament, having granted these rights, can't claim that ministers could remove them entirely. they can't cut off them entirely. they can't cut off the whole source of supply, eu law flowing into uk law. some are up for us if you can, the legal and constitutional significance of this. because we have an uncoded fight constitutions, these questions all with quite tricky. it is hard to determine this. there has to be an act of parliament to deal with the question of brexit. it might be the question of brexit. it might be the question of brexit. it might be the question of the 1972 act and the question of the 1972 act and the question of the 1972 act and the question of brexit. i think there is

a problematic tendency in the majorityjudgment to a problematic tendency in the majority judgment to be a problematic tendency in the majorityjudgment to be unduly sceptical of the prerogative and to allow a challenge from the statute that isn't really made out in the terms of the statute. this may give rise to more litigation and once it is framed with a majorityjudgment toa is framed with a majorityjudgment to a long—standing principle, i think they have made a mistake. we have asked you this before but a lot of people watching will think, i voted in a referendum and i still don't understand why it had to come to 11 supreme court justices don't understand why it had to come to 11 supreme courtjustices making their decision. straightforwardly because the legislation set up and they didn't say what would happen in they didn't say what would happen in the event of a yes vote. they could have been one line that said, this gives the government the power to trigger article 50 but that wasn't done. i suggest they blame the people who set up the 2015 referendum. there was an omission,

they didn't say what the consequences of a yes vote would be. the prerogative can't be used to ta ke the prerogative can't be used to take away rights of uk citizens. it isa take away rights of uk citizens. it is a long—standing principle. take away rights of uk citizens. it is a long-standing principle. good to talk to both of you. implications for scotland because the devolved administrations wanted the supreme court to say that they should have a say in the triggering of article 50 under something called the sewell convention. the supreme court did not say that, did not agree with that. alex salmond is the snp's spokesman for international affairs and europe. he joins us from strasbourg. what is your reaction to that? the

supreme court not agree in scotland should have a say in article 50.” am delighted there will be legislation, we can get our teeth into the government in terms of the house of commons and forced in the 50 amendments we already have prepared, the government to give the sort of detail on the article 50 with drawl they have refused to do so far. can i correct you, the supreme court didn't say they shouldn't be an lcm, they said it wasn't mandatory. they said it didn't have to be won. that indicates the convention is hardly worth the paper it is written on, even though it is entrenched in legislation. it means the government are politically bound to honour the commitment the prime minister gave when she took office, that she was looking for an agreed position across the united kingdom and one of her amendments we will table is the force that matter in the joint

ministerial committee to seek agreement with the devolved administrations before she goes forward with invoking article 50. so, are you saying that the snp's tactics in the commons will be to delay the legislation allowing article 50 or to try to derail it? what is your strategy. we are putting forward 50 serious amendments to demand from the government the sort of detail they hitherto have refused to supply. 0nly hitherto have refused to supply. only a matter of days since a select committee demanded to see a white paper before article 50 was invoked. 0ne paper before article 50 was invoked. one of the demands to see that white paper. people are entitled to know what they are getting into when the government takes forward what is by many accounts, and irrevocable step of triggering article 50. you are saying 50 amendments, it sounds like your tactic is to delay because the prime minister is wanting article 50

triggered by the end of march and that could make it quite tight if there are too many amendments. the prime minister has imposed her own deadline. that has no currency whatsoever, that was to get us through the tory conference. if you wa nted through the tory conference. if you wanted to supply the details she is duty bound to supply to the house of commons and the people on the country, she could have done it at any point over the last six months. we are not responsible for the faffing about. we are responsible for making sure the government is held to account in the house of commons and that is exactly what we will do. people watching this will say they voted in a referendum to leave the european union and you are trying to stand in the way of that. people will say that very few people when they voted in that referendum, knew the government intended to withdraw from the european economic area, from the single market place, with all the applications forjobs

and investment that provides. many brexiteers said they would stay within the single market place. they should also know the people of scotla nd should also know the people of scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the european union and they expect their interest to be defended by the snp and taken note of by the government. if therese a once to reconcile herself to scottish opinion, all she has to do is agree with the first minister's compromise proposal but regardless of her views and watch it up with the single market for england, scotla nd the single market for england, scotland should have the right to remain within the single market place and make sure scottish jobs and prosperity remain. that is all the prime minister have to do, pay attention to the views and interests of the people of scotland. in law view, is this all hastening a second referendum on scotland independence? if the government decides... the

indecision and weakness of the labour party will be a great assistance to them but if the government decides to bulldoze through the house of commons and not ta ke through the house of commons and not take on board any of the amendments put forward, if they then decide they are not interested in the compromise proposal in the interest of scotland, for scotland to remain within the single market place, if they sweep all that aside and say they sweep all that aside and say they don't care about these things, then i think nicola sturgeon wants a referendum and that becomes more likely. if theresa may throws down the gauntlet, nicola sturgeon will pick it up. a pleasure as always to talk to you. let's go back across parliament square to my colleague norman smith. he is across parliament square in the central lobby

of the palace of westminster. the government lost today and yet when you see government ministers, they are losing confidence, not only that they will be able to trigger article 50 but also that they will be able to do it in the deadline of the end of march. let's mull over some of that with the conservative mp mark harperand some of that with the conservative mp mark harper and caroline lucas, the mp. you are going to vote against triggering article 50 but do you accept you will be on the losing side? we don't know yet untold government brings a white paper forward. democracy won today. if ministers are that confident, you wonder why they spent so much time fighting in they spent so much time fighting in the supreme court. the real question now is what labour does because up until this point, they have waved a white flag and said there are no

circumstances under which they would not road to trigger article 50. that isa not road to trigger article 50. that is a dangerous position because it means the amendments they put forward will not have much traction if the government knows they can ignore them because they basically said, we will trigger article 50. those of us who want to see for example, a uk that isn't yanked out of the single market, that doesn't lose free movement, we will all have to stand up stronger because labour isn't doing the job of opposition. isn't it about the government basically trying to curtail parliamentary scrutiny because they opposed the right of mps to have a vote in the first place and wasted all that money on an appeal. they won't allow a white paper and now we learn they are going to have paid back minimalist bill, limiting the scope for amendments, all aiming to curtail the chance of mps to have a say. i don't agree, the decision today was clear, about who has the

right to trigger article 50. the supreme court says it has to be an act of parliament. it is not about the terms of the deal or the terms on which we exit. it is a matter for this parliament to pass that act of parliament, not for the devolved assembly. i would support the government bringing forward a tight bill that gave ministers explicitly the power to trigger article 50, given we had a debate about this on opposition day and it was passed by a majority of 373 to trigger article 50 by the end of march, i would anticipate parliament giving that authority. they vote at the end of this, theresa may have promised that, but is it good enough? we have at the moment a take it or leave it vote on the deal. the government has to do the negotiations. parliament can't be negotiating with 27 other

countries. she has set out the basis on which she will do that in her excellent speech and she will bring it before parliament. she has no mandate for the extreme brexit she is now pursuing. it makes it important that people have a right to have a say to ratify this agreement which means going back to agreement which means going back to a referendum of the people. next stage obviously, we await to see the brexit secretary statement to get some sort of idea about how this legislation will look like and how easy or not it will be to table amendments and any indication of how fast the government now plans to move. in a moment a summary of the business news this hour but first — the headlines on bbc newsroom live — the supreme court have ruled by a majority of eight to three, that the government cannot begin the process of leaving the eu without the consent of parliament. the lead

claimant in the challenge, gina miller, welcomes the ruling saying it shows parliament alone is sovereign. the government will set out its response to mps within the next hour. scotland first minister nicola sturgeon said the court's ruling that the uk government is not legally compelled to consult the devolved administrations before starting the brexit process. and that it raises fundamental issues. and. —— for scotland. the pound and the euro have been getting out a real pattern. if there is a decision oran real pattern. if there is a decision or an announcement which looks like it is going to throw an obstacle in the path of brexit, the pound tends to get stronger and the ftse falls. 0n the other hand, any announcement that gives the impression of smoothing the path to brexit, seems to make stirling fall and the ftse

rise. —— sterling. so this morning sterling has dipped slightly. that tells us that despite the fact that on paper, the ruling looks like it is gone against the government, the markets are interpreting it as making the path to brexit smoother. that's because the ruling, the article 50 that can only be triggered with parliamentary approval, is the one that many were expecting and in fact the courts could have ruled that the government needed to consult with the devolved administrations in wales, scotland and northern ireland. scotland and northern ireland both voted to remain and northern ireland is currently in the middle of an election process is so any consultation could have costs months of wrangling. so the markets i interpreting today's decision as another step closer to brexit. hence sterling is down against the dollar. let's look at some of today's other developing stories. within days of taking office, us president donald trump has made several major policy announcements

on energy, immigration and defence, and reinstated a ban on international abortion counselling. now, he has signed an executive order to withdraw from the tra ns—pacific partnership agreement, fulfilling one of his campaign pledges. joining us from our birmingham newsroom to discuss the latest developments is scott lucas, a professor of american politics at birmingham university. three executive order signed very quickly. withdraw from the trans—pacific quickly. withdraw from the tra ns—pacific partnership quickly. withdraw from the trans—pacific partnership trade deal, no federal money to be given to international charities supporting abortion and a freeze on government hiring. what do you make of those first three actions on the statement they send? one of these is expected, every time a republican get in, they reinstate the ban on funding. it harks back to the administration of ronald reagan. 0ne

of them is not viable, the ban on federal hiring. if you stop the federal hiring. if you stop the federal government from hiring people, it will grind to a halt. it isa people, it will grind to a halt. it is a bit of showmanship. the most serious decision is the one on the trans—pacific partnership. this was one of the flagship proposals of the 0bama administration, working with 11 countries in the asia—pacific area, countries such as australia, new zealand, japan. to boost free trade. to assist the movement of capital and labour, it was seen as a way of continuing the economic partnerships the us has with europe and others and will seem also to respond to china's economics drinks. donald trump with a stroke of the pen, caused a serious reversal of that, pulling the us out of the process and forcing the other 11 countries to decide what they do now. what is emerging? he is clear

about what he wants for america in terms of the sort of relationship with other countries, but looking at it from a uk perspective, what is emerging that would be helpful to look theresa may head of going to the united states on what might be anticipated the us— uk trade deal? not much will help britain and i think that needs to be said. donald trump can rip things up. he can say, no tra ns—pacific trump can rip things up. he can say, no trans—pacific partnership, he is likely to say, the us will not be pa rt likely to say, the us will not be part of climate change accords. what he cannot do is institute new arrangement on new deals. he doesn't have personnel in place and he doesn't have a coherent idea. what i think we will see on friday, a lot of words about how the uk has moved to the front of the queue for a trade deal with the us. words that theresa may needs because this looks like a hard brexit cause an economic

damage. in reality, at the earliest, a deal with the us could only begin to be negotiated within two years and it would take far longer than that to take effect. on that, talks can begin before the actual process is finished, informal talks, so why are you so pessimistic about it? you can are you so pessimistic about it? you ca n start are you so pessimistic about it? you can start informal talks but remember, the uk side is wanting details. the uk at the time of brexit, last summer, only had 15 people within the foreign office handling trade deals. the uk have to mmp handling trade deals. the uk have to ramp up to carry out discussions with the us and other countries, for example, asia, in the middle east. 0n the us side, thousands, hundreds

and thousands oppositions have not been filled in the us government and donald trump is at war with some of his american agencies, including financial agencies. the us isn't in the diplomatic or economic position to pursue any type of trade agreement. 0n to pursue any type of trade agreement. on top of that, donald trump is not pursuing trade agreements. he is a protectionist and saying the us will come out of and saying the us will come out of an agreement with asia and also with canada and mexico. thank you very much. much more reaction to the supreme court ruling. first we leave you with for a look at the weather. 0n the balcony is louise lear. not much terms with what the lass —— not matched change with the weather. slightly milder air due to a south

westerly breeze and some rain from the thicker cloud. cloudy and mild but pretty murky weather in the west and fog slowly lifting to brightons quys and fog slowly lifting to brightons guysin and fog slowly lifting to brightons guys in the east. if the fog lingers, the temperatures will be disappointing. double figures perhaps not out of the question along west facing coasts. staying pretty murky through the day, the exception perhaps the north west and the extreme far north of scotland. as we go through this evening, we keep this west— east divide. central and eastern areas will once again see some fog and frost reef forming so it will be another murky start. some of the fog will be slow to lift

away and it looks like it'll be the last foggy day. quite breezy out in the west and to the far north west, the west and to the far north west, the winds will strengthen and some rain will push into the extreme north west. double digits likely but cold and disappointing across east anglia and lincolnshire. thursday, we start to pick up subtle change in the weather but it could have a dramatic impact. 0ur winds become south—easterly and it has been bitterly cold in europe, some of that dry and cold air will head our way. coupled with a strengthening wind, it will make it feel quite disappointing on thursday. we again keep some dry weather and there should be some sunshine coming through but we add on the strength of the winds and temperatures will probably stay at 5 degrees but they will feel more like —2 and minus

three. wrap up warm on thursday. this is bbc news. i'm ben brown, live at the supreme court. the headlines at midday: the supreme court rules by a majority of eight to three that only parliament has the power to start the brexit process. to proceed otherwise would be a breach of settled constitutional principles stretching back many centuries. downing street says today's ruling will not affect its plans to trigger article 50 by the end of march. but one of those who brought the case against the government says mps will now have their say. only parliament can grant rights to the british people and only parliament can take them away. no prime minister and no government can expect to be unanswerable or unchallenged. the government will comply

with the judgment of the court and do all that it is necessary to implement it. the snp says it will put forward fifty "serious and substa ntive" amendments to the government's bill triggering article 50. we're putting for a third 50 substantive and serious amendments to demand from the government is sort of detail they hitherto have refused to supply. brexit secretary david davis is due to make a statement in half an hour, setting out how the government will respond. good afternoon and welcome to bbc

news from me, then brown, we at the supreme court about 9:30am this morning, the president, lord neuberger, read out the long—awaited judgment that made legal, constitutional and political history. he said, the 11 supreme courtjudges had decided by eight to three, a majority of eight to three, that the government was wrong and could not figure article 50 by its own executive prerogative powers, it had to allow parliament to trigger article 50 and begin the formal process of brexit. this is how lord neuberger summed up the supreme courtjudgment. today, by a majority of 8—3, the supreme court rules that the government cannot trigger article 50 without an act of parliament authorising it to do so. put briefly, the reasons given in a judgment written by all eight

justices in the majority are as follows — section two of the 1972 act provides that, whenever eu institutions make new laws, those new laws become part of uk law. the 1972 act therefore makes eu law an independent source of eu law until parliament decides otherwise. therefore, when the uk withdraws from the eu treaties, a source of uk law will be cut off. further, certain rights enjoyed by uk citizens will be changed. therefore, the government cannot trigger article 50 without parliament authorising that course. babos lord neuberger, president of the supreme court, reading out a

summary of the judgment. then speak to our legal affairs correspondent. the government were fearful they would lose this case and that's how it turned out. yes, they always had a major problem. they were essentially arguing against the one principle on which our unwritten constitution is based. that is the sovereignty of parliament, just over the square there. that was always a big issue and they found an ingenious way to argue around it. they argued that the rights they came into our law as a result of the 1972 european community that were not quite the same as nails down statutory rights and an act of the british parliament with no european element at all to that. they were treaty rights, they came in through a treaty and the government is entitled to use the prerogative to amend treaties, so they could take those rights held. thejudges here we re those rights held. thejudges here were not sympathetic to that at all.

may i just pause were not sympathetic to that at all. may ijust pause for a moment because i think we are about to hear from nicola sturgeon. we will go to that shortly. let's just here now from... now we can hearfrom nicola sturgeon, first minister of scotland. an act of parliament is required in the house of parliament before the triggering of article 50. i think that ruling is an indictment of the uk government that thought could press ahead without any reference to parliament whatsoever. it is now vital that parliament gets the chance to debate and decide upon not just the triggering the chance to debate and decide upon notjust the triggering article 50 but i think the terms of the negotiating position as well, snp mps will seek to work with others to stop a hard brexit in its tracks. you say you will seek to amend it but you might vote against the triggering of article 50? scotland voted against brexit and therefore i think it is inconceivable that snp

mps would vote for the triggering of article 50. but i think it is important that the house of commons and parliament is involved in not just the narrow question of whether to trigger article 50 but also the terms of negotiation. the prime minister set out last week a path towards the hardest of hard brexits. i don't believe there is a majority for that in the house of commons or across the country. this is an opportunity for the house of commons to assert itself and have a say, not just on the narrow question but on the broader terms of negotiation as well. the supreme court says it is a matter for the uk parliament. well. the supreme court says it is a matterfor the uk parliament. but they also said it was not a matter, asa they also said it was not a matter, as a method of statute, for the scottish parliament. opponents are saying you should leave well alone and leave it to westminster.” saying you should leave well alone and leave it to westminster. i am disappointed at the supreme court ruling about the role of devolved administrations. and i think it raises a really important question for the uk government after the smith commission, following the

independence referendum, they were at great pains to say that the single convention was to be embedded in legislation and therefore it was taking ona in legislation and therefore it was taking on a more important role in the devolved arrangements. what was the devolved arrangements. what was the point of embedding it in legislation if it's not legally enforceable? i think that commitment from the uk commitment today has been shown to be not worth the paper it is written on. that said, the court is clear that cracks will touch upon the devolved competencies of the devolved administrations and recognises the importance of sewell asa recognises the importance of sewell as a political convention. i think it is important that the scottish parliament has the right to vote on whether or not it is prepared to consent to triggering article 50. opponents say it is simply causing further divisions in the uk and you should abide by the entire spirit of thejudgment should abide by the entire spirit of the judgment and go should abide by the entire spirit of thejudgment and go down should abide by the entire spirit of the judgment and go down the road should abide by the entire spirit of thejudgment and go down the road of thejudgment and go down the road of the uk decision in the uk

parliament. let me be clear, i accept the court ruling that the sewell convention is not legally enforcea ble. sewell convention is not legally enforceable. the relevant attached to embedding that has been shown not to embedding that has been shown not to be worth the paper it is written on. i accept the supreme court ruling in that regard but i do think it poses big questions for the uk government. there's nothing in the supreme court ruling that says that the sewell convention should be ignored as a political convention. clearly, brexit impinges upon the devolved competencies, not just clearly, brexit impinges upon the devolved competencies, notjust the scottish parliament, but the welsh assembly and the northern ireland assembly and the northern ireland assembly as well. it is a fundamental issue with so many applications for the devolved settlement, so they should have a say in whether or not they consent to the triggering of article 50. we will bring forward a motion that allows the scottish parliament to do that. i would then hope the uk government would pay attention to it. the scottish parliament could

vote no, that's teetering on issue across the uk? could that be right? we wa nt across the uk? could that be right? we want to have competencies that recognise the results across the uk. i have always regretted the result but i accepted. the uk as a whole voted to come out but scotland and northern ireland voted to stay in. that is why we have book for compromise proposals to square back the circle. those are the compromise proposals. i think the fundamental question emerges here. we have long been told the uk is a partnership of equals, with all the four nations that make it up but if we are now being told that scotland's voice simply does not matter, it will not be heard or listened to, notjust that it be heard or listened to, notjust thatitis be heard or listened to, notjust that it is not enforceable in the courts but it will not be politically listened to, then that raises a really fundamental question for scotland. are we happy to allow our future to be dictated by a westminster government with one mp in scotland ? westminster government with one mp in scotland? 0r westminster government with one mp

in scotland? or is it time to take our future into our own in scotland? or is it time to take ourfuture into our own hands? in scotland? or is it time to take our future into our own hands? that was nicola sturgeon, first minister of scotland. let's pick up on some of scotland. let's pick up on some of points. clive coleman, our legal affairs correspondent is here. the supreme court did not only have to decide whether parliament was needed to trigger article 50 but also the question of whether the devolved administrations should have a say and they said not. yes, they said that law is law and politics is politics. they were looking at this thing called the sewell convention. it doesn't have the force of law. it says that when westminster legislates on matters which affect the devolved parliaments, they will seek the consent of those devolved parliaments. in scotland's case, it is slightly stronger. the scotland

act, gives the sewell convention, some legislative force. nonetheless, the supreme court said, actually, conventions are not something that we, thejudges conventions are not something that we, the judges can conventions are not something that we, thejudges can roll on. it is a force of law. we'll thought that if the case was proceeding, it was an interesting political complexion to the case but it didn't really plate, asa the case but it didn't really plate, as a legal issue. so, now the ball has been thrown back into the court of politics, really. it has indeed. and let's throw that ball figuratively and metaphorically back over to parliament where our assistant political editor is. norman smith? david davies will be setting out the government position shortly. let's mull over all things relating to article 15. i am joined by neil coil. a prominent remain

campaigner. and a brexit campaigner. the government wanted to get away without a vote. the judges have said not on your nelie, mps must have their say. pretty embarrassing, isn't it? before christmas, we had a motion in parliament and parliament overwhelmingly voted en masse to say that article 50 would be triggered by the end of march. i think that will still happen. i don't think the government timetable is in any way affected. the house of lords, if you look there, will not frustrate the government on triggering article 50. i think the timetable is still where it is. there is a pattern building here. you didn't want a vote in parliament, you won't have a white paper, you want a stripped down bill. you want mps to give this as little scrutiny as possible. mps voted 6—1 in favour of the referendum in the first place. just before christmas, we had a motion to

say that mps will trigger article 50. we are creating attention does not exist. we should do is come together, those who voted to remain relieved, to get the best deal for this country. that's what we should be doing. anna soubry, you're shaking her head. sorry, you're nodding your head in agreement. they seem to now accept brexit? we have an agreement, i think, between all of us, we now need to come together and get the best deal for our country. the vote referred to, one pa rt country. the vote referred to, one part was to vote for the triggering of article 50 in march, which i don't agree with, but i voted for it. because the other important thing was that the government undertook to do a paper. i want a white paper. iasked undertook to do a paper. i want a

white paper. i asked a question of the prime minister last week about that and i think after her speech, where she made so clear about objectives of this desire to bring us together, to heal the wounds, get rid of these terms, leave and remain, bring us together, form that consensus to get the best deal, and as part of that, let's have a white paper. must have the debate. the government has nothing to fear from a debate. and it's part of that healing process that we need. either way, i will article 50. just briefly, we will hear from your leader, jeremy corbyn, who i believe has been speaking. we want to make sure that process gets ahead of the also want to make sure that our government is held to account throughout this process. so they don't turn britain into a tax haven on the shores of europe. we actually maintain living standards, improve standards and protect workers' rights, and crucially, we have market access to europe, where half

of britain's trade already exists. but it would be a white paper, we haveis but it would be a white paper, we have is that relatively short speech from the prime minister. is that enough information?” from the prime minister. is that enough information? i think it is quite appalling the government does not produce white paper as a statement of what its intent are. all we got was a speech on premise to lancaster house. we got the court judgment this morning and will have a statement, apparently, from david davis later today in the house. frankly, there should be a proper statement for the government intends to do on this. jeremy corbyn signalling that he will not frustrate or block article 50 but he has significant questions he wants answered. neil coyle, labour mp, you, however, do want to frustrate article 50. yes. i would be supporting it, i made a promise to my constituents, i would vote for nothing here that harms my constituents. sadly, since the referendum, we've seen some of that

home injob losses, higher import tariffs, businesses unable to invest, businesses moving out of london, as a direct result of the confusion over brexit and the government not saying what the arrangement will be. and that trumps what your leader is saying, namely, he is calling on labour mps can not frustrate the process, don't block article 50, he's saying. the labour party policy adopted at the conference after the referendum was what i am saying. 70% of members support this. my position is in line with labour party policy. i hope there may be a whipped abstention or a free vote. we know one vote which mr corbyn wants to table is a meaningful vote on brexit, which means mps would have a vote before mrs may signs of the final deal. you

campaigned for brexit as part of bolstering parliamentary sovereignty. what is wrong with that? jeremy corbyn is trying to appease both wings of his party. those with constituencies who have overwhelmingly accepted leaving and then the likes of neil coyle, who will openly defy their later. so, jeremy corbyn cannot sit on the fence, he has to go for triggering article 50, which is the right thing to do. that is what the referendum was all about. you can't begin negotiations before you trigger article 50. when the end the negotiations have a final deal, under prime minister is right to play her cards close to her chest, you don't tell the other side what you don't tell the other side what you read lines are and your positions. said that jeremy corbyn is trying to piece together to different powers of the labour party, i think this misses the point. zac goldsmith thrown out, and

conservatives need to listen to people and explain why they are writing an economic suicide note. would you like to derail brexit?” would like to stay within the european union because as things stand, the best case scenario for theresa may is a worse deal than we have today. passionate arguments because brexiter such a passionate issue. no doubt we will see some of that shortly in the commons with david davis gets to his feet. thank you. let me take you back to that judgment read out by lord neuberger at 9:30am today. soon after he delivered it, we heard from gina miller, the businesswoman at the centre of this horrible case, she was the original claimant that said at his parliament must trigger article 50, not the government, through its prerogative powers. she

has had death threats, she has hired bodyguards to protect her throughout this case. after the judgment, bodyguards to protect her throughout this case. after thejudgment, she came outside here on the steps of the supreme court and gave her reaction... today, eight of the 11 supreme judges upheld the judgment handed down by the high court in november. in a case that went to the very heart of our constitution and how we are governed. only parliament can grant rights to the british people and only parliament can take them away. no prime minister, no government, can expect to be unanswerable or unchallenged. parliament alone is sovereign. this ruling today means that mps we have elected will rightfully have the opportunity to bring their invaluable experience and expertise to bear in helping governments select the best course in the forthcoming brexit negotiations. negotiations that will frame our place in the world

and all our destinies to come. there is no doubt that brexit is the most divisive issue of a generation but this case was about the legal process, not politics. today's decision has created legal certainty based on our democratic process and provides the legal foundations for the government to trigger article 50. data bank the judgment was made before that. —— the judgment was made 15 minutes before that. they had prepared various options for possible bills the government may

present to parliament. we hope to hear more on that from the brexit secretary, david davis in ten minutes' time. but we had immediate government reaction straight after thatjudgment here at the supreme court from the attorney general, jeremy wright, mp qc. i want to begin by thanking the justices of the supreme court of the careful consideration they've given to this matter. it is a case that it was wholly appropriate for the highest court in the land to decide. of course, the government is disappointed with the outcome. we have the good fortune to live in a country where everyone, every individual, every organisation, even government, is subject to the rule of law. so, the government will comply with the judgment of the court and do all that is necessary to implement it. the court has been very clear throughout the hearing of this case that it has not been deciding whether the united kingdom should or should not leave the european union. the people of the uk have

already made that decision. and now, enacting that decision will be a political matter and not a legal matter. and so, the secretary of state for exiting the european union will make a further statement in parliament later today. thank you very much indeed. that was the attorney general. i am joined by chuka umunna of the labour party. what is your reaction? those who campaigned to leave the european union did so in part because they we re union did so in part because they were saying the voice of the people through parliament should be sovereign. the guys behind us in the supreme court have said is that parliament should be sovereign.

therefore, parliament acting on behalf of the people should be the ones who trigger article 50. lobby prime minister, acting as some kind of pseudo— dictator, but parliament. and they should be respected. they have said the voice of the people should be heard through parliament. and that is simple. surely when people voted, they thought what they said would just go and we would just leave the eu. there is an act in the commons to trigger article 50 but the content of the deal, that is a different matter altogether. yes, the process will start. they do not believe that theresa may, an unelected prime minister, has been given a blank cheque to change our country into a giant tax haven for wealthy corporations and the very rich. she has not been given a blank cheque to take away your viewers' social protections and rights. and i

will be fighting for the best deal in this negotiation process and i will not entertain running a coach and horses through the living standards of lower and middle—income standards of lower and middle—income standards in my constituency, are already struggling. it is difficult out there, the economy is difficult, we need to make sure we get the best dealfor we need to make sure we get the best deal for them, we need to make sure we get the best dealfor them, whether we need to make sure we get the best deal for them, whether people voted leave or remain. when it comes to a vote in the commons, across the road, how will you vote? will you try to delay the brexit process?” will struggle to set my face against the referendum result that was fought under rules that i agreed to. if it be like refusing to accept the result of a general election. it might even though you don't like the result? i don't like it and many of my constituents don't like it but i am speaking consulting with the people i represent in terms of how i've read. i am a democrat. ifind it hard to set my face against the result of the referendum. but the deal, the deal here is a different matter. there are different ways of

leaving the eu. what i want to see the prime minister do is to retain as many of the economic benefits that we get from membership of the eu with us being outside it. i accept more control over immigration. but she does not have this mandate to destroy our country in the process. let's not forget, if brexit meant anything, it was £350 million extra per week going into our nhs. very clear pledges made by the foreign secretary, the secretary of state for international development and others. people will wa nt to development and others. people will want to see that delivered through this. as labour mps, we will hold them to account for it. thank you. i know you're going across the road to listen to the statement from the brexit secretary, so i will let you run over parliament square. thank you. we can also speak now to a businessman, part of the lobby group, leave it means leave. do you

think what the supreme court decided today, does that delay? the result was expected. no great surprises. we are pleased the devolved legislatures have not been given the right to delay the issue further. the government is in a strong and confident position after the excellent speech by the prime minister last week. she clearly set out the direction of travel. we will leave the single market. effectively, we'll leave the eu and the truth is that people want to get on with it. people are quite bored of brexit. let's move on. let's take advantage of opportunities. chuka umunna is completely wrong, the economy is doing well, economic data has good, whether its car sales, construction data, it's all really quite positive out there. we have to ta ke quite positive out there. we have to take advantage of the opportunities of free trade deals, reducing unnecessary regulation. it's very exciting. it's very positive. we wa nt exciting. it's very positive. we want to get on whether the bush/. we spoke to alex salmond and he said

the snp have 50 amendments up their sleeves, effectively to delay the bill which would trigger article 50 when presented in parliament. everybody knows how the snp behaves. the reality is the government has a majority to bat away all these amendments. i would expect the government to bat them all away and acce pt government to bat them all away and accept nothing. this is a simple process of starting the process of leaving. what you started, sure, you can't into the detail of negotiation, that is all to follow. but this is very simple we would expect to go through the commons and the house of lords very quickly, to give confidence to everybody, so we can push on and give economic confidence to people. and theresa may's timetable of triggering article 50

by the end of march, is that still intact? yes i think it is but we need to get on with it now because there are rumours of other legal challenges coming down the pipeline. they need to push on. what people do not want his mps and unelected lords delaying the will of the people any further. thank you. we will hear from the brexit secretary in the house of commons shortly. it is a beautiful and sunny day. let's get a weather forecast for the whole country. thank you. some of us enjoying sunshine, some fog lingering into the afternoon. cloudier skies in the west. overnight, brisk atlantic winds across the north and west will keep the frost and fog at bay. it will feel my heart. temperatures up to 11 degrees in stornoway. still cold in england, temperatures could get down to minus five. icy stretches on the

road tomorrow, possibly and the risk of freezing fog patches, particularly for east anglia and maybe across the midlands and southern england. fork will attempt to lift tomorrow morning and be replaced by low cloud. that could bring some drizzle. don't be surprised if you see a bit of wintry mess. brighter skies in the west. a cloudy day for scotland and northern ireland. still quite called the east. this is bbc newsroom live with joanna gosling. the headlines at 12.30am — the uk supreme court has ruled — by a majority of eight to three — that parliament must give authorisation to the government before prime minister theresa may can trigger article 50 to formally withdraw from the european union. today by a majority of 8 to 3, the supreme court rules

that the government cannot trigger article 50 without an act of parliament authorising it to do so. the court's ruling was welcomed by the lead claimant in the challenge, gina miller. she said mps will now have the chance to select the best course in brexit talks. only parliament can grant rights to the british people and only parliament can take them away. no prime minister and no government can expect to be unanswered or unchallenged. attorney generaljeremy wright said the government would "comply with thejudgement of the court and do all that is necessary to implement it". of course, the government is disappointed with the outcome but we have the good fortune to live in a country where everyone, every individual, every organisation, even government, is subject to the rule of law. scotland's first minister nicola sturgeon said regardless of the supreme court ruling, the government is politically obliged to consult the nation's devolved assemblies

on exiting the eu. the snp say they will table multiple amendments to any government start to brexit. and in other news, the us president, donald trump, has fulfilled a campaign pledge by signing an executive order to formally withdraw from the 12—nation trans—pacific partnership trade deal. motorists who are caught driving well above the speed limit are to face harsher penalties. the sentencing council has issued new guidelines to magistrates in england and wales. hello, we are live at the supreme court and at 9:30am, it made the historicjudgment delivered by lord neuberger, president of the supreme

court, that by eight to three, the supreme court justices had court, that by eight to three, the supreme courtjustices had decided in favour of parliament triggering article 50. let go to parliament, david davis, the brexit secretary.” will now make a statement about today's response to the decision by the supreme court. we will move swiftly to leave the european union andi swiftly to leave the european union and i can swiftly to leave the european union and i can announce we swiftly to leave the european union and i can announce we will shortly introduce legislation allowing the government to move ahead with invoking article 50, which starts the formal process of withdrawing from the eu. we received the lengthy 96 pagejudgment from the eu. we received the lengthy 96 page judgment a few hours ago and government lawyers are assessing it carefully. this will be a straightforward bill. it is not about whether or not the uk should leave the european union, that decision has already been made by the people. we will work with

collea g u es the people. we will work with colleagues in both houses to make sure this bill is passed in good time as we invoke article 50 by the end of march this year. the prime minister has set this out. this timetable has been supported already by this house. let me go through the issues. the government's priority has been to respect the outcome of the referendum and make sure it is delivered in the interest of the whole country. this house, voted 6-1, to whole country. this house, voted 6—1, to the decision to be put into the hands of voters and it passed unopposed. there can be no going back. the point of no return was passed on june back. the point of no return was passed onjune 23 last year. the government has also always been clear we must leave by following the process set out in article 50 on the treaty of the european union. people expect us to get on with implementing them a decision. let me turn to the process for invoking article 50 on the issues that arise from today's supreme courtjudgment.

the view of the government which we argued in high court and supreme court was that it is proper and lawful for the court was that it is proper and lawfulfor the government court was that it is proper and lawful for the government to begin to give effect to the decision of the people by the use of the prerogative powers to invoke article 50. today, the supreme court has agreed with the high courtjudgment that the prerogative power alone is sufficient to give notice under article 50. that legislation —— is an sufficient to give notice under article 50. after all... the supreme court ruled, and i quote, relations of the eu and for other foreign affairs matters are reserved for the united kingdom government and parliament, not devolved institutions. the supreme court summary goes on to say that devolved legislatures do not have a veto on the uk's decision to withdraw. i

will come back to our collaboration with devolved administrations later. we believe and value the independence of ourjudiciary. the foundation upon which the roar of law is built. so of course, it goes without saying, we respect this judgment. this judgment does without saying, we respect this judgment. thisjudgment does not change the fact that the uk will be leaving the eu. it is ourjob to deliver on the instruction uk people have given us. we will within days introduce legislation to give the government legal power to trigger article 50 and begin the formal process of withdrawal. it will be separate, the great repeal bill that will be introduced. this will be the

most straightforward bill possible to give affect the decision of the people and respect the supreme court'sjudgment. the people and respect the supreme court's judgment. the purpose people and respect the supreme court'sjudgment. the purpose of this bill is simply to give the government power to invoke article 50 out begin the process of leaving european union. it is what the british people voted for. parliament will rightly scrutinise and debate this legislation but i trust no one will seek to make it a vehicle for attem pts will seek to make it a vehicle for atte m pts to will seek to make it a vehicle for attempts to thwart the will of the people or frustrate the process. our timetable for invoking article 50 by the end of march, still stands. that timetable was given valuable certainty. it is understood by our european partners and provides a framework for planning the negotiation ahead. this house itself backed that timetable by a majority of 373 in december. we look forward

to working closely with colleagues here to make sure that the legislation on article 50 is passed in good time to allow us to invoke it by the end of march as planned. the government's fifth and final principle for responding to judgment is to continue to make sure that we deliver and exit in the best interest of the whole of the united kingdom. the supreme court has ruled clearly in the government's favour in roles of devolved legislatures. this welcomes clarity but no way diminishes our commitment to working closely with the people and the administrations of wales, scotland and northern ireland, as we move forward with our withdrawal from the european union. i know this case on an issue of such important arouses strong views on all sides and it has not been without controversy. the court was asked a question, a proper, thorough and independent process was gone through and it has

given its answer in law. we are a law—abiding nation and the uk is known the world over for the strength and independence of its judicial system. we will build on this and many other strengths as we leave the european union. we will once again be a fully independent, sovereign country, free to make our own decisions. 0ur prime minister has already set out a comprehensive plan including our core negotiating objectives. it is clear that we want a new and positive and constructive partnership for the uk and the eu, a partnership for the uk and the eu, a partnership that will be good for the uk and good for the rest of the europe. today, we are taking the necessary step to respect the decision by announcing the bill. it will be up to parliament to respect the decision entrusted to the people of the uk, a decision they took in june. i commend this statement of the house. keir starmer. can i thank

the house. keir starmer. can i thank the secretary of state. this is a good day for parliamentary sovereignty. the supreme court has ruled we will have a say in this house on the article 50 issued. given the issues involved, that is quite right and the prime minister was wrong to attempt a sideline parliament in this process. this bill is only to be introduced because the prime minister has been ordered to do so. i hope in the aftermath, they will not be the attacks on ourjudges that they were when the high court gave its judgment. it is the duty of all of us to defend them if they do. and to do so quickly and i hope the secretary of state willjoin me in that endeavour. the question now moves the proper role of parliament. the supreme court said nothing about the particular fall of legislation. on issues as important as this, it would be wrong for the government to try to minimise the role of parliament or to seek to avoid amendments. i asked the secretary of state to confirm he will not take

that approach. this is a question of substance, not process. last week, the prime minister committed herself to swapping the known benefits of single market membership of the customs union for the hoped—for benefits of a free trade agreement. with a fallback position of breaking our economic model. that is high risk. there are big gaps inconsistencies and unanswered questions in the approach of the prime minister. if the prime minister fails prime minister. if the prime ministerfails in her prime minister. if the prime minister fails in her endeavour, the cost will be borne by families, working people in communities throughout the uk. the stakes are high. the role of this house in holding the pro—minister and government to account throughout the process, is crucial. labour respect the result of the referendum and will not frustrate the process. we will not frustrate the process. we will be seeking to lay amendments to make sure proper scrutiny and

accountability throughout the process. that starts with a white paperora plan, a process. that starts with a white paper ora plan, a speech process. that starts with a white paper or a plan, a speech is not a white paper or plan and we need something to hold the government to account throughout the process. we can't have a speech is the only basis for accountability for two years or more. that is the first step that needs to be a reporting back recede and there needs to be a meaningful vote at the end of the exercise. the government should welcome such scrutiny, not try to resist it because the end result would be better if scrutinise. i hope the secretary of state can confirm we will not seek to minimise scrutiny and accountability. i will leave others to say about the devolved administration. it is important those... what a waste of time and money. the high court decision was 82 days

ago and the prime minister could have accepted then to introduce a bill and we could have debated the issues and i would like the secretary of state to lay out what the cost to the taxpayer has been. the prime minister was not aiming to sideline... laughter the house is in an understandably excited and excitable state. what i wa nt excited and excitable state. what i want to say to colleagues is that they don't have to look into a crystal ball when they can read the book. membership no that i always wa nt book. membership no that i always want to facilitate the fullest possible questioning and scrutiny and it is right that should happen. but it is also right that when the secretary of state is responding to

questions, he is given a fair and courteous hearing. she was aiming to carry out the will of the people. if i may pick up on the point the honourable gentleman quite properly raised, the issue of ourjudges, i think i mentioned at length, three times in my statement, that this is a nation of the rule of law, in which independentjudiciary is is important and something which is watched by other countries as an example. all the people he could criticise, i don't think i am at the front of the issue. similarly, on the question of the process, there has been an interesting litany through this whole process, every single time i get up and i say that i will give the house as much

information as possible, subject to not undermining the national interest, not undermining our negotiating position, and that is what we have done and it's what we will continue to do. notjust through this bill but also through the great repeal bill, subsequent primary legislation, secondary legislation and the final version at the end, which we have promised. he talked about membership of the single market, putting aside that you have that, you have to give up control of your borders, your own laws, rules, all of which the labour party is singularly capable of even making a decision on, let alone coming up with a policy on. the prime minister last week gave a 6500 word closely argued speech which has been recognised on all sides of this country and all around europe as an

epitome of clarity, of very clear objectives, very clear aims, very clear ambitions for this country. i don't take that point at all. more generally, about scrutiny, we have now had i think, five statements, ten some 30 different select committee enquiries on i hardly think in six months, that is an absence of scrutiny of a central government policy. i was... the honourable gentleman doesn't often surprise me but for the ex—director of public prosecutions to say that the supreme court is a waste of time, strikes me as quite extraordinary. quite extraordinary!

i made this point a number of times in the last few months. one of the reasons for taking this... 0nce in the last few months. one of the reasons for taking this... once this process has started, in order to get the most authoritative and clearest possible guidance in terms of a major part of our constitution will stop so i don't really think yet again, the honourable gentleman has advanced the knowledge of the house very much. studio: the brexit secretary david davis with that statement. he said it would be a straightforward bill. let's go to our assistant political editor norman smith at the commons. a straightforward bill, not much has been straightforward so far. straightforward bill, not much has been straightforward so fanm hasn't but we got a clear indication

then that this would be a pared down, minimalist bill, probablyjust a couple of clauses, trying to make it as difficult as possible for mps to table critical amendments. david davis describing it as the most straightforward bill possible. he also said it would be introduced within days. some speculation that could mean possibly tomorrow, certainly i would expect before the end of this week. he also suggested they would get the legislation through parliament in good time to trigger article 50. you get the sense the government want to move ahead swiftly. to leave nothing to chance. because although they are supremely confident they will be able to trigger article 50 by the end of march, parliamentary trapdoors can open up, even when they seem to be unsure footing and theresa may cannot be certain this is going to be plain sailing because

labour will table amendments, as will the snp, they have 50. who knows what will happen in the house of lords, the government may seem to have a strong hand, but i would suggest it is premature, given the whole way the brexit debate has gone so far, for ministers to be congratulating themselves on a certainty that they will be up to secure article 50 by the end of the month. for the moment, thank you. 0ur assistant political editor norman smith. we are at the supreme court where we will talk to a couple of our hot legal brains who have guided us through this hearing. professor alison young from hartford college, oxford university and jeremy brian, barrister at essex court chambers. was that roughly what you were expecting? we watched this closely together in december and we were always saying, it looks like the government are in trouble. we weren't getting the indications

from the justices that they were suddenly going to go the other way. i thought it might have been unanimous. it is interesting that we saw three very powerful dissenting voices today and so from a legal point of view, although we do have a big ruling in favour of miller, we also have a great debate between the justices about the true source of law. a wide constitutional debate to be had in places like hartford college, oxford, for many years to come no doubt. keir starmer was saying, what a waste of time and money in terms of the government bringing the appeal to the supreme court. i suppose at least it has clarified some things legally and constitutionally? absolutely, huge constitutionally? absolutely, huge constitutional importance and it is important to have the decision of the supreme court, having all 11 adding weight to the decision. it is important all the way through this process they have stressed very key

aspects of the uk constitution. the sovereignty of parliament, parliament has supreme legal authority. also recognising the independence of the judiciary. we recognise what is going on in politics. we come back to this issue andi politics. we come back to this issue and i know people watching it will be watching, but we the people are sovereign, nobody else, we voted in a referendum! what we all have to remind ourselves is that this is a legal question about process. not really a question about whether or not we do withdraw from the european union. thejudges not we do withdraw from the european union. the judges were not we do withdraw from the european union. thejudges were keen not we do withdraw from the european union. the judges were keen to not we do withdraw from the european union. thejudges were keen to be clear that decision was made in the referendum. i think we all take the view that parliament is unlikely to obstruct the triggering of article 50. this case was about whether the

prerogative power can be invoked to trigger article 50 or whether you need an act of parliament to get royal assent in the form of an act to do that. now we know the process and what has to be done, legally with regards to our constitution, but the ultimate political question, will we leave the eu? that was done and dusted in the referendum. other questions decided by the supreme court about the devolved legislatures in scotland, wales and northern ireland. whether they should have a say on the convention, the sewel convention as it is known, but the supreme court said no. the sewel convention as it is known, but the supreme court said now the sewel convention as it is known, but the supreme court said no. it is important to recognise this divide between law and politics. they are not saying the sewel convention is not saying the sewel convention is not important but it is something done through politics and it is politically enforceable. the courts will look at it and observe the convention but they will not enforce

it. it is about separating between law, the legally correct way of doing something, and the politics of leaving and consulting the devolved bodies. looking back briefly, it has been fascinating. this mixture of law and politics and the constitution we have seen in the supreme court. the fallout from this as you can see across the road is just beginning. keir starmer saying this was a colossal waste of time and money, but really, you can understand why the government far they had to take this to the highest level. because we are dealing with matters of such political and constitutional significance, not to have the supreme court give the final word, you cannot appeal against them of course, it would have been unthinkable, they couldn't just let it rest in the high court because it is matters of such complexity and importance. thank you. that is the latest from the

supreme court after that historic judgment. 8—3 in favour of parliament triggering article 50 rather than the government and we we re rather than the government and we were just hearing from the brexit secretary david davis that in response to thatjudgment, which he said the government respects, the government will shortly introduce legislation, triggering article 50 to parliament and he said it would bea to parliament and he said it would be a straightforward bill anti—trust no one will seek to make the bill a vehicle to thwart the will of the people. he said there can be no going back. that is the latest from the supreme court. studio: much more on that coming up in the one o'clock news. let's look at some of today's other developing stories. president trump has signed an executive order to formally withdraw the united states from the trans—pacific partnership agreement, fulfilling one of his campaign pledges. the trade deal involving a dozen countries was agreed by barack 0bama.

president trump has also cut funding for international groups that provide abortion advice or services, and has frozen the hiring of some federal workers. an inquest into the deaths of 30 british holiday makers who were murdered by a gunman in an attack on a beach in tunisia continues later today. the hearings, held at the royal courts of justice, began hearing evidence about the victims yesterday. it is expected to last between six and eight weeks. the trial of former television entertainer rolf harris continues at southwark crown court today, when the defence case is expected to begin. the 86—year—old is accused of seven counts of indecent assault and one alternative charge of sexual assault. the alleged assaults, against seven victims aged between 12 and 42, are said to date from 1971 to 200k. just a reminder — find out who's been nominated for the oscars on our special programme. that's at 1.15pm on the bbc news channel, joinjane hill and the film critic jason solomons — that's the oscar nominations 2017.

ina in a moment, the news at one pm but first, the weather. a big mixture of whether from a big mixture of whetherfrom one place to the next. we started with fog. that fog did start some problems at some of the airports earlier this morning that it wasn't foggy everywhere. cloud to the north west and sunshine to eastern areas of england. relatively clear skies and the mist lifting. there could be a couple of fog patches lingering through the day but not too many. wales and north west england have a lot of cloud and thatis west england have a lot of cloud and that is thick enough to bring some rain. whether pushing into southern

scotla nd rain. whether pushing into southern scotland as well. northern ireland staying cloudy and the north of scotla nd staying cloudy and the north of scotland should stay bright but quite a brisk wind blowing. particularly through the western isles. overnight tonight, the wind coming from the atlantic will keep the frost and fog at bay across the north—west and a relatively mild night. the cold air tending to look across central and eastern england and with that cold air in place, we will see a widespread frost in the countryside. there could be some icy stretches tomorrow morning and a risk of further patches of freezing fog. particularly, likely across south east england and east anglia. that fog will clear through the morning as we drag some cloudy weather in from the continent. could get some drizzle with that and don't be surprised to see the odd snowfla ke be surprised to see the odd snowflake falling. a bit of brightness across wales and western

england. northern ireland and scotland, windy and cloudy. the isobars squeezing together across the uk so thursday, a largely dry day but quite windy. early morning cloud breaking to give some sunny spells but brisk winds making it feel chilly. despite temperatures reaching 5 degrees, it will be a few spots feeling below freezing. it is trending towards the end of the week and the weekend is that the weather will get milder. the government loses its appeal at the supreme court — only parliament has the power to trigger the brexit process. eight of the eleven judges agreed that mps and peers, not the government, should be responsible for triggering article 50. the government cannot trigger article 50 without parliament authorising that course. outside the court, the ruling was welcomed by gina miller, the woman who'd challenged the government. today's decision has created legal certainty based on our democratic

process and provides the legal foundations for the government to trigger article 50. david davis tells mps that there is no going back on brexit and legislation seeking their approval will be introduced quickly. we will within days introduce legislation